On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:16:52 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Scott mentioned dial backlash. There must have been a problem with his
radio! Its a direct drive and I can't imagine how you could get
backlash unless the 'disc' had worn spots.

It's been a long time and I don't remember if I felt backlash on my
Hammarlund but I do remember I didn't like the tuning. I think they used
a cheap (for the day) gang cap and it was probably too light. Direct
drive or not, a crappy tuning cap is going to give you bad feel and
crappy tuning.

If you really want a Hammarlund at least see if you can try it out in
person or get a trial period. There are certainly better radios around.

My HQ-145XC has been re-capped and new tubes, and is smooth and a very
good AMBCB DX machine. I rarely listen to SW anymore, not much to hear
like when I was in HS in the 60s. I have always loved the look and the
quality of Hammarlund radios. I had to start off with a crappy
Hallicrafter's S-120 from Sears. I always wanted an HQ-180, still do!
What other radios do you think are better?

I used an HQ-170 for several years (a long time ago!) The vernier tuning
(plus/minus 3 kcs, IIRC) was wonderful. Otherwise, based on later receivers,
it was not that impressive. The internal "hiss" level was higher than many
other receivers. (I worked 99% CW.) It had USB/LSB selectivity, but it was
not great. There should be no backlash. Some functions, like the noise
slot, were not very useful. Only later versions had 6 meter coverage; mine
did not. The clock was nice, but it was just a clock.

HQ-170s are relatively cheap on ebay. (I bought one a few years ago, just
for old-time memories, and sold it shortly thereafter. It does not measure
up to more modern receivers.)

HQ-180s (in reasonable condition) are not cheap. For general shortwave
listening, they are considered a high-end unit but this is a different
category than serious ham usage (especially for chasing weak DX with minimal
antennas, which was my HQ-170 experience).

As several people have mentioned, short-wave broadcasting is not was it was
a few decades ago and is generally disappearing rapidly. You can still find
the religious stations, if that is of interest.

I think your decision should depend on what you want to do with it. A good
HQ-145X should be ample for general short wave listening, unless you have a
very specific and difficult interest. An HQ-170 is ham-band only (without
WARC and maybe without 6 meters). An HQ-180 may be better for more intense
shortwave listening if you have specific objectives in mind. A good HQ-180
is likely to be much more expensive than the other two.

Bill - W2WO

fruit diet on cnn diet plan modesto solbi lose weight
diet low in iodine wedding dress diet made me anorexic weight loss urgery
no diet com federal grants weight loss church free free weight loss tip information
prescription diet meds relacor weight loss exercise to flatten tummy lose weight
genesis weight loss weight loss after jaw surgery twa stewardess diet program
megan fox apple cider diet child loss menu weight harlan 2018 diet
fbop application of religious diet healthy low calorie diet for woman lipotropic weight loss clinics denver
perscription diet weight diet chart weight loss suplements that work fast
chromium diet loss tips for losing weight fast around the butt and thighs diabetes diet pre
diet access lyle mcdonald's rapid fat loss program cayenne fruit and weight loss

sctvguy1 wrote:

What other radios do you think are better?

I had a couple Nationals and my friends ran homebrews and Drakes and the
occasional Collins.

The National 303 especially was a favorite. Audio was warm like Bill Haley
and the Comets on Fender tube (of course!) amps, and that heavy heavy tuning
flywheel could almost spin across the whole band with one flick of the
wrist. I believe it had 6 bandwidths from about 6K down to 250Hz. I haven't
seen a better tube CW rig ever. SWL was great on it too. They seem to be
loved by everyone who had one or ever used one. They were huge though, make
room in the shack.

On 1 Nov 2011 18:14:27 -0000, Kulin Remailer
wrote:

sctvguy1 wrote:

What other radios do you think are better?

I had a couple Nationals and my friends ran homebrews and Drakes and the
occasional Collins.

The National 303 especially was a favorite. Audio was warm like Bill Haley
and the Comets on Fender tube (of course!) amps, and that heavy heavy tuning
flywheel could almost spin across the whole band with one flick of the
wrist. I believe it had 6 bandwidths from about 6K down to 250Hz. I haven't
seen a better tube CW rig ever. SWL was great on it too. They seem to be
loved by everyone who had one or ever used one. They were huge though, make
room in the shack.


What are the attributes that must be "part of better"?
Does sctvguy1 want just a receiver or will a transceiver do?
What modes does he really want to listen to, e.g., teletype, digital,
cw, ssb, am, fm? What frequency range is desirable? Would he want
VHF and UHF if he could get it? How about frequency setability?
How about a computer interface to the receiver? Does it have to have
knobs, or is a Software Defined Receiver ok? Is sensitiity more
important than selectivity? Must it look "pretty"?

Better is also a function of $. What kind of $ range is to be
considered.

Ed, N5EI

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Edward Feustel wrote:

On 1 Nov 2011 18:14:27 -0000, Kulin Remailer
wrote:

sctvguy1 wrote:

What other radios do you think are better?

I had a couple Nationals and my friends ran homebrews and Drakes and the
occasional Collins.

The National 303 especially was a favorite. Audio was warm like Bill Haley
and the Comets on Fender tube (of course!) amps, and that heavy heavy tuning
flywheel could almost spin across the whole band with one flick of the
wrist. I believe it had 6 bandwidths from about 6K down to 250Hz. I haven't
seen a better tube CW rig ever. SWL was great on it too. They seem to be
loved by everyone who had one or ever used one. They were huge though, make
room in the shack.


What are the attributes that must be "part of better"?
Does sctvguy1 want just a receiver or will a transceiver do?
What modes does he really want to listen to, e.g., teletype, digital,
cw, ssb, am, fm? What frequency range is desirable? Would he want
VHF and UHF if he could get it? How about frequency setability?
How about a computer interface to the receiver? Does it have to have
knobs, or is a Software Defined Receiver ok? Is sensitiity more
important than selectivity? Must it look "pretty"?

Better is also a function of $. What kind of $ range is to be
considered.

And I suspect at this point that "better" may not be the only criteria.

The H1-180 was about a decade old when I first read about it, coming into
the hobby in 1972. It always seemed intriguing, something different about
it, even though it wasn't the only receiver at the time it came out that
dropped to 60KHz for selectivity with LC circuits (and thus supplying
multiple bandwidths with less limitation of the phasing type crystal
filter). So wanting it now might be because of that lust when it came out
and was too expensive. There were lots of receivers that came out that
had some neat thing about them, or others that were barely discussed, and
yet they may take precedence over the "better receivers" because it's the
unique that's desired, not "best reception".

Now, so many have transceivers (or a matched pair of receiver and
transmitter), and if recent enough, they even have general coverage
reception built in. So like I said, criteria is different now from even
forty years ago, when you'd be trying to stretch a general coverage
receiver to ham use. If you now have the function of general coverage,
and generally good design, then the novelty of that Clegg receiver with
the external converter so it covers the shortwave bands is much more
appealing, whether or not there are "better receivers".

I'm not just talking about collecting, but that one can still lust after
an old receiver without it being Top of the Line (though perhaps one lusts
after those at the same time).

Michael VE2BVW

Hi,

I've got an HQ-170C. I'm surprised no one mentioned drift.
It's fine for cw/am, but SSB is a trial, unless you let it run 24/7.
The HQ-170C is the same as the HQ-170, except it includes
the optional clock.

My receiver required a realignment to get back the very sharp
selectivity designed into it. The audio system has a strange
design, where the level you set the gain control also affects
the audio bandwidth. If the audio is cranked up high,
for weak signal reception, audio bandwidth will be reduced.
It never bothered me, but it is something to be aware of.

The HQ-170AC added a separate, always-on filament transformer
for the HF oscillator and first mixer tubes, which must have helped
stability greatly. The HQ-170AC also solid-stated the power supply,
removing the 5U4 rectifier, a big source of heat.

The HQ-170A/VHF (last of the '170 line) added a built-in 2 meter
converter designed by Frank C. Jones.

73,
Ed Knobloch

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Edward Knobloch wrote:


Hi,

I've got an HQ-170C. I'm surprised no one mentioned drift.
It's fine for cw/am, but SSB is a trial, unless you let it run 24/7.
The HQ-170C is the same as the HQ-170, except it includes
the optional clock.

That's true, because while it's multiple conversion, the crystal
oscillator is the second conversion (unlike the Collins sort of design,
where it's a tuneable receiver with a crystal controlled converter ahead
of it), so the receiver has the local oscillator is an LC oscillator
running almost up to 30MHz or, the only difference from the average single
conversion receiver of the era is that when it goes to triple conversion
the LO is offset by 3MHz. Considering that stability was always an issue
when the LO went up towards 30MHz with no synthesizer, the receiver can't
be that different from the average receiver (except to the extent
Hammarlund put into stabilizing the oscillator). As someone once pointed
out, the Collins type arrangement wasn't just to get rid of image
rejection, it allowed for a linear scale that was good for each band, and
kept the LC LO at a reasonably low freqnency.


My receiver required a realignment to get back the very sharp
selectivity designed into it. The audio system has a strange
design, where the level you set the gain control also affects
the audio bandwidth. If the audio is cranked up high,
for weak signal reception, audio bandwidth will be reduced.
It never bothered me, but it is something to be aware of.

Is that the "variable response audio system" mentioned in the "73"
listing? I read the listing as meaning "tone control".


The HQ-170A/VHF (last of the '170 line) added a built-in 2 meter converter
designed by Frank C. Jones.

I was going through more magazines last night, and noticed an ad for that
one. It didn't mention Frank Jones, which seems odd since it does seem a
selling point, his VHF book, all those converter articles (a new device
would appear, like a nuvistor, the transistor, the FET) and he'd issue a
set of articles, new converters for each of the 50 to 420MHz bands using
the new device. When Tapetone, or was it Redline, came out with a new
converter, they featured Sam Harris as a "proud owner".

Michael VE2BVW